Home Top Ad

Post Top Ad

Thursday, January 3, 2019

Parallel Universes and the Multiple Reality Theory

A new scientific theory suggests that death is not the terminal event we think.
A while ago, scientists reported they found the first evidence of parallel universe.
This discovery lead us to a thought-provoking subject called “Biocentrism”
Robert Lanza, M.D, scientist, theoretician and author of “Biocentrism” – How Life and

Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe thinks there are many reasons why we won’t die.
To him death is not the end, as so many of us think. We believe we
will die, because that is what we have been taught, Robert Lanza says in
his book.

Will You Continue To Live In A Parallel Universe?
There are many scientific experiments that seriously question the term death, as we know it.
According to quantum physics certain observations cannot be predicted
absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations each
with a different probability.

The “many-worlds” interpretation, states that each of these possible
observations corresponds to a different universe, what is generally
called the “multiverse”.
Robert Lanza has taken these theories even further.
He believes that “there are an infinite number of universes, and everything that could possibly happen occurs in some universe.

Your Energy Never Dies

Death does not exist in any real sense in these scenarios. All
possible universes exist simultaneously, regardless of what happens in
any of them.
Although individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the alive
feeling – the ‘Who am I?’- is just a 20-watt fountain of energy
operating in the brain. But this energy doesn’t go away at death. One of
the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither
be created nor destroyed.”
This energy can transcend from one world to another.

The Importance Of Consciousness
“Consider the uncertainty principle, one of the most famous and
important aspects of quantum mechanics. Experiments confirm it’s built
into the fabric of reality, but it only makes sense from a biocentric
perspective.
If there’s really a world out there with particles just bouncing
around, then we should be able to measure all their properties. But we
can’t. Why should it matter to a particle what you decide to measure?

Given that different possible quantum developments of the universe
result in many different observers, it becomes possible, based on the
study of our world, to decide between the two views. Technically, the
heart of the argument stems from the notion that improbable universes
truly exist in Everett’s hypothesis (in small numbers), although in the
Copenhagen interpretation, they are only (generally speaking)
possibilities without any material reality.
The central idea may be understood very simply using an analogy. Let
us imagine a bag containing a million black balls and only one white
ball. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, all of these balls are
essentially the same.

Testing Everett’s improbable hypothesis

And for good reason: Everett’s theory of “multiple worlds” turns out
to be more simple, coherent and elegant than the standard view, known as
the Copenhagen interpretation, in which mathematical contortions are
required to avoid the “living-dead” cat conclusion. Yet it is clear that
the ultimate test would be an experiment.

Quantum mechanics: a dirty little secret

Physicists
like pictures. To be honest, 80% of quantum mechanics work just
involves drawing a series of pictures that show how something we’re
interested in changes over time.

But
physicists have fragile egos and don’t want you to know that. So they
put special boxes (called “kets”) that look like this: ⎜ 〉around their
pictures to make themselves think that they’re doing something more
complicated than they actually are.

More than a century after its discovery, quantum mechanics—which
describes the behavior of physical entities at the scale of elementary
particles—is still not clearly understood, despite the fact that its
most disturbing predictions have until now always been completely borne
out by measurement. Faced with the difficulty of giving meaning to this
grand theory, we must content ourselves with simply accepting its three
most important tenets. First, abandon the determinism of classical
physics in favor of a probabilistic view; next, consider that many
apparently continuous values, such as, metaphorically, the altitude of a
person on a hill—are in reality discontinuous—comparable to the
altitude of this same person in a multi-story building; and finally,
accept that certain particles are in fact ubiquitous and may be present
in several places or in several different states at the same time

Given that different possible quantum developments of the universe
result in many different observers, it becomes possible, based on the
study of our world, to decide between the two views. Technically, the
heart of the argument stems from the notion that improbable universes
truly exist in Everett’s hypothesis (in small numbers), although in the
Copenhagen interpretation, they are only (generally speaking)
possibilities without any material reality.